As I said, Obama and Clinton are responsible for this. Bad security. Bad intelligence. Bad decision for the ambassador to be so unprotected on 9/11. (The last is not a Clinton-Obama decision.) (Probably)

Assuming that this was a preplanned attack, it was also bad luck for the ambassador. Likely the cowardly attackers picked Benghazi for the low security. That the ambassador was there was just a bonus. (Probably.)

Again clever Obama and the rascal media have us chasing a squirrel. It's not about apologies. It's not about some idiot's movie. It's about policy and protection and whether we know what we are doing.

Ambassador Stevens sounds more and more like the model diplomat. The Libyan ambassador to the US was on CNN, and seemed to be genuinely sorrowful about his death. They were friends.

Yeah I know my complaints are hindsight. But you don't need hindsight if your leaders have some foresight.

All across the middle east, barn doors are clicking shut in American diplomatic posts.

Okay, so what do take for the morons in the press to realize that this was a well-planned and co-ordinated attack, and not some protest over a YouTube video?

(1) How did they know that the Ambassador was going to be at the Consulate in Benghazi rather than at the Embassy in Tripoli at that time?

2) Sure, every protest march in the ME wouldn't be complete without the presence of RPGs, right?

3) The attack on the consulate took place in two waves, using the protest as cover. The second wave deliberately targeted the Ambassador and separated him from what few defenders were at the Consulate.

4) The Administration has failed to mention that there were known threats to the Ambassador, from CNN:

"The attack apparently occurred because in recent days, the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri posted a video online calling on Libyans to avenge the killing of al-Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi." Link.

It would be nice if the press would get Obama's cock out of their ass long enough to look for the facts instead of going after Romney to give the Administration cover

pm317--The courage of people like Ambassador Stevens is to put themselves in harms way from the "neanderthals" because they understand that the average people are decent and have normal human aspirations.

Not whether the Executive Branch had any sense as to whether this attack would happen, took steps to protect American personnel in hazardous locations, or issued milquetoast statements in response to Islamic intolerance for free speech. Those don't matter at all.

No, they are protecting their golden calf. If they are not protective (0 chance), Obama need not worry -- women like Althouse will come to his aid (you know she declared in the other post that if Romney got harsh on Obama, she and her ilk would become protective of Obama).

The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.

There have been several reports that some Marines died with Ambassador Stevens. Is this no longer operative?

Doesn't anyone in our mainstream media have any curiosity? A day goes by and finally Politico comes up with this?

I think this is the first time I am actually more than just in disagreement with the president. If you choose to lead a team, you do not hang them out to dry. You do not abandon them when they may need you.

And you sure as hell don't go to sleep while their lives are on the line.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, YemenMilitants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

From Ms Oop: Why are we not using our troops? Why are we depending on private contractors to do the job the military used to do? Private contractors cost us more and provide sub par services.

Your last sentence is correct, the first 2 questions anwser themselves. Our own troops are exceedingly expensive: to recruit, train and prepare a single marine costs an order of magnitude more than the salary of some jackleg Libyan to guard our embassy. We don't have enough of our our uniformed defenders, so whether we contract w Haliburton or hire Gaddhafy's former chauffer, it's lower cost to contract out for services. Is it a better decision? Obama probably still thinks so; it wasn't his sorry ass on the line.

Aside from being at the pinnacle of American foreign policy, they were also the prime movers supporting the rebels in Libya and in Egypt. Is it really a coincidence that violent riots culminating in attacks on American embassies on 9-11?

But to hear from the MSM and our trolls, the truly important terrible thing is that Romney spoke out.

Seriously Allie, who knows. The only thing that pops into my mind as a possibility off-hand is that civilians are less "offensive" than military if we're trying not to look like jack-booted thugs. Maybe a FOIA request could find out if there was a memo directive to hire contractors or not and why.

Why are we not using our troops? Why are we depending on private contractors to do the job the military used to do?

Because contractors (outsourcing) are less expensive. They can be hired and let go at will, subject only to their contracts. They don't have to be reassigned when the assignment is over. No pensions. Already (theoretically) trained.

Meanwhile, the pro-Obama press did not listen to what Romney said in his statement. Romney condemned the horrific murder and agreed with Obama's disappointment with the statement that came out of Cairo's embassy.

Hugh Hewitt played the open microphone tape of CBS's Jan Crawford organizing an anti-Romney press ambush.

It's a cost thing, Synova, pure and simple. Has nothing to do with how "offensive" they are. In fact, some of the contractors are highly offensive solider of fortune types. Others (mostly) are technicians. The ones who provide security are nearly all former military.

Oh horseshit, we can't afford to do this with our own troops. Have you people lost your minds? We PRINT money. WHENEVER we want. What does printing up the cost of an incremental Marine security attachment have to do with it? I rather suspect it is some move to have a small "footprint" and it blew up in someone's face. Literally.

The fact that the deaths occurred in Libya is unfortunate and distracting from the much bigger geopolitical issue of the Islamist lurch in Egypt. There is obvious government complicity with regards to the Embassy protests and reactions in Cairo. The Egyptian leader Morsi is still silent . . .

The Marines will tell you that, in the face of a concerted attack, Embassy protection is a death trip for the defenders. We can't have enough force to truly defend the embassy. We can make the attack somewhat costly, so that your average mob will not try it. But a motivated well planned and well led attack would eventually overwhelm the defense.

Thing is, they would have to kill American troops to complete their mission. Very bad idea for the attackers in the long run.

Its was 9/11 and Obama didn't take any extra precaution. When are the American voters going to learn that we can't entrust the national security of our country to Dems. The first 9/11 was being planned while Clinton was president and he failed our country by not responding appropriately to the 1993 world trade center attack, by not taking seriously our national security. My contempt for those of you liberal dumb-asses who voted for Obama continues to grow, you ignorant liberal fools.

Edutcher, if the troops are where they are needed, that's where they should be. I don't believe I said they need to be home just for the hell of it.

I don't think that staying in Afghanistan indefinitely will do us as a nation or them any good. Guarding our Embassies seems to be something that our troops should be doing, not expensive ineffective private contractors.

"Using contractors in a big way happened when? Under whose administration?"

A) Doesn't matter

B) Contractors have been used in the army since Washington, ebbing in and out of interest depending on finances and public willingness to use troops/availability. So, it is kind of hard to say. Also, since America is unwilling to draft people, a lot of skilled positions that would normally be filled by draftees/volunteers hoping to avoid the draft during wartime, are now filled by contractors.

No Allen, wouldn't be OK with that. No reason women shouldn't be held to the same requirements. my brother was also drafted during VietNam. You know my daughter volunteered, she's in a war zone now as you know.

YES Allen, what are you confused about? You asked if I wanted only males to be drafted, I answered NO, women should be held to the same requirement for selective service. Where are we crossing wires Allen? :)

The attack itself is not surprising, and I don't necessarily blame the President for it. What I am angry about, is the high muckety-mucks apologizing to Muslims for our right to free speech, and the press' total dereliction of duty.

As a former Foreign Service Officer who spent the bulk of 25 years in the Middle East, there are just some facts that you have to live with.

There are embassies and consulates that do not have USMC Security Guards. The reasons vary. It can be a small, two-officer post for which it makes no sense to send a 12-16 man Marine detachment.

The host country may not permit a USMC detachment for its own reasons of sovereignty. If that's the case, then an even greater burden falls on that host government to ensure security.

The USMC may not have enough Marines to staff every US diplomatic facility. Marines do not come in infinite supply and assignment to a diplomatic security detachment is a reward/honor. It's not just enough to be a good Marine... you need to be an excellent Marine to get that duty.

Interesting piece of trivia:

Since the end of WWII, more US Ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty (now, six) than Military general/flag officers (zero).

The armed services personnel are capped by Congress (there was a short, two-four year period [forgive me for not knowing the exact period] in which the Army and Marines were allowed to expand by about 10%); outsourcing the non-combatant, base/rear echelon centered services to civilians allowed the Army and Marines to turn a higher percentage of their personnel into combatants (historically, about one combatant to nine support and service support personnel).

In short, the Army and Marines could remain within their Congressional authorized limits, but with a lot more killers.

As a former Foreign Service Officer who spent the bulk of 25 years in the Middle East, there are just some facts that you have to live with.

There are embassies and consulates that do not have USMC Security Guards. The reasons vary. It can be a small, two-officer post for which it makes no sense to send a 12-16 man Marine detachment.

The host country may not permit a USMC detachment for its own reasons of sovereignty. If that's the case, then an even greater burden falls on that host government to ensure security.

The USMC may not have enough Marines to staff every US diplomatic facility. Marines do not come in infinite supply and assignment to a diplomatic security detachment is a reward/honor. It's not just enough to be a good Marine... you need to be an excellent Marine to get that duty.

Interesting piece of trivia:

Since the end of WWII, more US Ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty (now, six) than Military general/flag officers (zero).

Allie, one more time, women can't be drafted because they are not registered. Get it? That's the way it is, men have to register, women don't. That's the way it was, is and will be tomorrow. My wires are not crossed. Women are not held to the same requirement for selective service.

It sounds like Mr. Stevens was an upright guy. I say sounds because he did choose to represent the worst excuse of a president, evah. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he died in the line of duty. I am very sorry for his families loss.

To keep this from recurring with further American lives lost to these pigs it's time. Time to turn every embassy in these countries that can't and or won't police their violent extremist fortresses.

As I have made clear on this site numerous times I don't think we should engage in corporal punishment, but the visceral fury I feel about how these countries dis-respect any sort of moral behavior makes me so angry that I forget myself and my beliefs.

I want the US military to go in and blow every one of these people up. Men, women, kids...the final solution. But then I realize if we did, we'd be no better than they are. So...what to do.

Make our embassies fortresses...nothing is impregnable, but make them so that only a "government" force could breach it.

Make the countries that these things occur in pay. These people don't care about life or death. Death is an improvement for their hellish existence and is to be devoutly wished for. So hit them where it hurts...take their tyrants money and toys away. Remember how Daffy changed his tune after a few f-16's dropped some serious tonnage on his wife, kids and camels? Do the same, because these leaders don't give a rats ass about their people. You gotta' make it personal...make it hurt.

Nuke the savage back to the stone age would be an improvement to these child rape worshippers.

--To keep this from recurring with further American lives lost to these pigs it's time. Time to turn every embassy in these countries that can't and or won't police their violent extremist fortresses.--

1. Marines versus contractors: Cost and bodies. Our Government doesnt want to spend the money or keep DoD at a size that allows reasonable rotations for troops.

2. locals versus those nasty, but competent ex-Fascists :) part of this is a local government decision, part is the State Deprt. typically, there are a number of layers and roles to security. Local gaurds on the outside to interact with the locals and frankly, to soak up the car bombs. Blackwater or DS guys as the personal security escorts. Marines for the Offical building stuff and inside work.

3. Best value versus low cost technically acceptable. Federal contracting has two basic evaluation methods. Best value allows you to select the higher priced, but better quality seurity, but the pencil pushers may go for warm bodies at the lowest price instead.

PS: I assume everybody knows that deep inside the Embassy are the NSA crypto guys who do all the commo work. While the Marines are dying at the door, the diplo staff gets herded into safe rooms and the crypto guys and the CIA station chief lock themselves inside their vault and start breaking stuff. That was what failed in Tehran. They caught the Ambassador and the staff outside the vault and he ordered the crypto guys to surrender before they had finished their destruction drill.

I served in an NSA commo center in VN. all the gear had wiring harnesses over the top. If we got the destruction order, you pulled the front of the crypto box out, dropped in an 8in square sheet of thermite, hooked two alligator connectors from the wiring harness and repeated 30 times. Then you donned your air tanks and juiced the wiring harness from big truck batteries. While you had been doing that, guys with axes and sledge hammers were working the less important stuff and others had big 55 gallon burn barrels where all the loose paper went. The safes we just thermited.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, YemenMilitants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured."

LOL garage direct cut and paste from dailykos or one of the many lefty site publishing this list.

So now for the facts. Number of Americans killed above: ONE.

The one diplomat killed was not in the embassy. He was outside the embassy at a nearby hotel.

In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

Nope I knew we wouldn't agree on who costs our government more, troops or contractors. I do know that my daughter says the contractors in Afghanistan have far better living quarters than they do, which I'm sure aren't cheap.

PPS, NSA obvious is doing more than just como work out of the Embassy. You should have seen the flames at NSA when State let those commie Russkies build their new Embassy on the high ground in Georgetown. All those antenna on Embassies are not just for TV...

Armed contractors generally only provide security, in situ and in transit.

Think advance team/Secret Service, but more obvious.

The hope is, their presence deters assault.

But they don't really perform military missions.

Yes, providing armed defense of a building is part an infantry units' training and mission, but it would be overkill to deploy a platoon (or even two squads) with traditional TOE in a static, defensive environment in nothing happens almost all of the time.

It would also be a waste of resources, training, and a good infantry unit.

Contracting this out to retired soldiers actually makes a lot of sense, from a mission, training, and cost perspective.

"I do know that my daughter says the contractors in Afghanistan have far better living quarters than they do, which I'm sure aren't cheap."

No doubt conditions vary by location and mission; at the base level, the per capita cost may be greater; overall, aggregate costs are substantially less. They do a much smaller,more discreet, limited job as compared to standard combat units.

I'm confident the pay and conditions are attractive; after all, they are civilians. Their relationship with their employer is different than your daughter's relationship is with hers.

I wonder how well Israel would do with just volunteers. I actually have a very high regard for the conscription forces of Israel. There is something very honorable, and desirable about it including the female inclusion.

I also greatly admire the U.S. volunteer program. It also seems highly honorable, but the fact that so few protect so many who sacrifice so little is troubling. I have long held a sense of lost opportunity, and guilt about not serving myself. I wish I could now.

" People need to show more respect for the families and hold off on the politicking, IMO."

I don't see how it's disrespectful to anyone to ask these questions, or how they're "politicking." I expect the families would appreciate hearing the answers too. Surely someone could have anticipated that there might, perhaps, be violence in these countries on Sept 11th.

Contractors are cheaper because the government does not have a permanent employee, with all the indirect costs that entails. It's also cheaper because to increase the force military pay would have to be increased to a much higher level for everyone, not just the hires at the margin for the emergency or the special skill.

I was drafted and served my two years for which the Gov't gave me the GI Bill ($135/month actually enrolled and passing grades at that time) which got me through engineering college with me workng part-time to pay for food and shelter, and I thought it was quite a good deal and not tyrannical at all.

Universal service is a bit different than a draft, though. It's still conscription, but maybe a bit more like taxes. Everyone does their bit of training for the Guard and the country gets a population with a bare bones framework of what to do in an emergency.

A draft is different. It happens in war, first of all, and doesn't include everyone even if everyone is signed up. And there really isn't any purpose to it. People didn't need to be drafted after 9-11, they volunteered. Later, enough people volunteered even if it took signing bonuses and a bit less strict enlistment rules. Those are the normal way that total numbers are controlled. (The Air Force can require higher ASVAB scores and cleaner records than the Army can, not because you have to be smarter, but because it reduces the number of enlistees.)

I don't know anyone who wants to *serve* alongside a conscriptee. But if we *need* to go to war, we ought to have no real fear that we won't get enough volunteers. If we don't get enough volunteers and not even a signing bonus and training will do it, then maybe our politicians should give it up.

Maintaining a rather larger trained force is a different question. If we *need* people, we can't ask attackers to "hold that thought" for the several years it takes to produce a trained military.

It was. So was locking up Americans of Japanese descent, military seizure of private property, and widespread press censorship. Necessary under the circumstances, perhaps, but a necessary evil at best.

Our armed forces have moved beyond the need for human cannon fodder, in the form of draftees. It's no longer necessary, still evil.

Oh, and though I was never actually shot at, this was in '55-'56, and there was some times that it was a real possibility that the balloon would go up, and they flat told us that our job would not be to win anything, but just to slow the Soviets down a bit, so that the country would have time to arm and equip others to maybe win out.

AllieOop said...How tyrannical of the US to draft all those men in WW2.

Tyrannical? Maybe Freeman didn't use the best word, for once. But it certainly involves coercion and compulsion. The draftees in WWII, and those who volunteered but would have been drafted, would agree. Most of them considered the day they got out of the military as freedom day. I know my father did. The nation had to resort to the coercion of a draft because we and the Europeans so badly mismanaged things that we were vulnerable to attack. Freedom is always a casualty in wartime.

David said...Contractors are cheaper because the government does not have a permanent employee, with all the indirect costs that entails. It's also cheaper because to increase the force military pay would have to be increased to a much higher level for everyone, not just the hires at the margin for the emergency or the special skill.

and of course, you need 3 marines in order to keep 1 on station in an Embassy to replace the one contractor.

My point AllieOop, is you dont pay a Blackwater type when he is off roatation in the states. You do have to pay the 2 marines, one of which is training up for deployment and the other is recovering.

as for the "no threat stream"

an Arab country, no government to speak of, a zillion guns on the street. AQ all around? What were they thinking?

The thing about tyranny is that you may get it anyway if you don't make some uncomfortable compromises to your principles. When it's all at stake, you really find out what those are. Choosing to kill people to defend the innocent or your freedoms is not exactly a goal.

You know damned well that "middle-aged woman" is going to be at the bottom of any list of potential draftees, so you can happily support a draft knowing you'll never have to submit to it. Oh, I'm sure you'll whine something about how you have kids who might have to serve -- as though sacrificing your children's lives to protect your own makes YOU a noble individual.

Edutcher, if the troops are where they are needed, that's where they should be. I don't believe I said they need to be home just for the hell of it.

Ah, but he/she/it has said that ad nauseam. A-stan wasn't the mess it is when Dubya left office. Like Egypt and Libya and other places (I read there were "demonstrations" in Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, and at least one other locale today), it's Zero's work.

He knew better than everybody else.

Just like the budget deal.

I don't think that staying in Afghanistan indefinitely will do us as a nation or them any good. Guarding our Embassies seems to be something that our troops should be doing, not expensive ineffective private contractors.

One day we'll leave A-stan the way we've left Germany and are leaving Korea, but it should be at the right time militarily, not because a political opportunist like Choom picks at date at random.

And those contractors were former SF - hardly ineffective. Oop and his/her/its Lefty friends didn't like that because they were too good at their job.

"BUT if we are attacked in a big way, we will be scrambling to find enough troops."

I guess that my argument, Allie, is that if we are attacked in a big way, we will not have to scramble for enough troops. We'll have to scramble for sergeants, and that doesn't work. No draft will procure a sergeant. A draft won't even procure an infantry private on a moment's notice these days.

We are a big enough nation (economically and in population) that we don't need to do the things that Israel has to do for protection.

Exactly. And that's post-WWII America.

I'm always perplexed by the fact that Democrats (not Republicans) want to reinstate the draft. WTF?

But it makes sense. Generally speaking, Republicans may be more "hawkish" than Democrats. But Republicans and Democrats-- generalizing here-- have different ideas about individual liberty, and specifically about the relation of individual citizens to government. Draft = Obligation. The ultimate Obligation, you owe (and are enjoined by law to give) your very life when your Government demands it of you.

This is different from patriotic "allegiance to the Flag and Republic." NB How Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be nauseated by patriotic displays ("jingoist"; "fascist") or patriotic "propaganda"-- which might instill civic values and patriotic feelings that would motivate citizens to voluntarily enlist, voluntarily risk their lives for their country.

But many of those same Democrats would favor the horrors of a draft. And then I think, of course. Many Democrats would want every war that America engages in to be (and be experienced by Americans) like Vietnam was.

It is interesting to see the media narrative constantly change to try and protect the President.

1st it was that the original tweet apologizing for the US came before the attack. But this changed once someone pointed out that they reaffirmed it after the attack was known.

Then it was that Romney shouldn't be critical of the administration on such a foreign policy matter (never mind the left's cheering of dead american soldiers during Bush's admin). Except now the administration has stated that it agrees with Romney (through actions and leaks).

So now the criticism is that Romney reacted too quickly to the matter. I figure this message will survive half a day before someone points out that this issue has been simmering for a while, so this was hardly a sudden critique.

Also someone will point out that it's hardly knee jerk to state that: (a) an embassy in a violent nation with a good amount of AQ activity should probably have some security on the anniversary of 9/11 and (b) the statement from the embassy was ridiculous on it's face and worthy of immediate scorn.

I'm curious as to where the narrative will shift once this excuse has failed.

I'm willing to believe Allie thinks it's a genuinely good idea, but *usually* it's just a back-door anti-war effort. Because, the thinking goes, if there is a draft there will be anti-draft protests and anti-war protests and the middle class and the upper classes will be mobilized to oppose the war since the draft plays Russian roulette with their children.

The thinking goes, the volunteer military prey's on the poor, generally "urban" youth and no one cares if black kids die, but they'll care if it's forced on suburbia. (Despite the clear fact that minorities are under-represented in direct combat military specialties.)

I'm willing to assume that Allie is being honest, but usually promoting a draft is not done honestly.

Yashu, seriously? Who were the anti war protesters during Vietnam? Not conservatives.

So? That's a non sequitur. It's you, not conservatives, not anyone else here, who's arguing for a return of the draft-- a draft that would force young men (what about women?) against their will to face the horrors of war, fight and risk their lives as soldiers. That is an admirable sacrifice: IMO not everyone has the stuff to be a warrior.

Are you saying you sympathized with the antiwar protesters and draft dodgers, horrified by the draft during Vietnam (when it was actual law), but are advocating a reinstatement of that same horror now (now that it's no longer law, you want it be law again)? Who's the hypocrite?

There are two big problems with the draft. The first is you can't afford to draft everyone, so you end up with some kind of lottery system that's a) inherently unfair and b) eventually gets gamed by people with money and influence.

The second is the equipment and tactics we used today require smart, highly trained people. That means we need to keep people longer than we could reasonably expect a draftee to stay in, and we don't have much use for people on the left half of the bell curve. The days when you could send a guy with an IQ of 80 to Paris Island for six weeks and make him an asset during battle have been over for decades.

We have enough troops, and if we didn't Congress could authorize more. Personally I'd rather see contractors staffing embassies - you can't defend an embassy without more troops than the host country would allow anyway. I'd rather see the military concentrate on it's core mission - breaking other militaries.

"Synova, if we were attacked in a big way and here were not enough volunteers we shouldn't go to war, would here be enough to defend ourself from a second attack? Should we just surrender?"

Yes.

Because if we are attacked and not enough people want to bother defending themselves, then it's over. It's the most direct measure of the "will of the people" that there could possibly be.

Maybe no one CARES if we have to learn Chinese? Who are we to demand they care?

I've heard that at the time of the Revolution a third of the people were actively neutral, a third wanted to break from England, and a third were loyalists. I don't know how true that was, but I bet it's pretty close. A third of the population was enough.

Our military operates at a bit over a million people out of a population well over 300 million. That's a fraction of a percent, yes? If we were attacked in a huge horrible attack, what is the likelihood that we couldn't get another 1 out of every 300 people to volunteer?

That would double our military population, just one out of every 300 people.

If we can't raise enough volunteers, then we shouldn't be doing it. Something will have caused that failure and conscription would not cure it.

Yashu, did I say I sympathized with them? My brother was drafted and ended up in Vietnam. Also upthread I stated several times that I believe women should not be exempt from a draft, should it be reinstated.

The Drill SGT said...we drafted drafted in WW II because there wasnt enough money to pay the salaries needed to get 16 million volunteers.

======================Nope.Volunteers got no significant pay differential as they served than Draftees did.The reason we had to draft was the same as in the Civil war. It was going to be a meatgrinder and many men simply preferred others fight and die while they who did not join up had the women and good-paying war economy jobs.

There were also ethnic and religious groups that shunned military service, and the Draft had a good deal of support because it was not fair to see noticable population segments getting away with ducking the war.

That is why even in WWII, you had 7 million volunteers, but 9 million Draftees. And many volunteered basically to avoid being discardable General Infantry issue soldiers.

John Burgess wrote (7:57pm): "Since the end of WWII, more US Ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty (now, six) than Military general/flag officers (zero)."

This is simply, and shamefully, false. If you Google "generals killed in Vietnam", you can easily find that 12 flag officers were killed in Vietnam, 7 of them by enemy action, the rest (I think) in accidents: 7 Army, 1 Marine, and 3 Air Force generals, plus 1 Navy Admiral. You can get their names, when and how they died (mostly from having their helicopters shot down or crash in accidents), and their exact ranks (7 1-stars, 5 2-stars). And that's just Vietnam, so 12 (or 7 if you only count enemy action) is a minimum. I know Walton Walker, the 3-star general commanding the Eighth Army in the Korean War was killed in a jeep accident, so that's at least one more.

Why do people post ignorant comments that two minutes Googling would have shown to be entirely false?

"Security" at the consulate lost touch with Ambassador Stevens shortly after the attack began. The attack started at 10 PM and contact was lost within the first 20 minutes. No American saw Stevens until his body was delivered the following morning "after dawn."

(Delivered by whom? To whom?)

Supposedly Stevens "somehow" got to a hospital, where supposedly he died. The State briefers seem to accept as fact that he died at the hospital. Why they accept this is not clear.

There was an American regional security officer with Stevens when the attack began. That officer lost Stevens within 15 minutes. It's not clear whether he was armed, or if there was any armed American security at the consulate.

Questions:

Was there really only one American security person there?

Why was the threat assessment so low, given the Egyptian situation, the fact that it was 9/11 and several recent attempted attacks in Libya?

Why did it take 4.5 hours before Libyan security moved to retake the consulate buildings where Stevens was?

Where was Stevens all this time? When did he leave the consulate? How did he get out? Why did no one see him leave?

Was he alive when he left or was his body taken out?

Was he actually at the hospital?

Did the hospital really not know who he was? If so, how did they later find out?

When were the photos of Stevens taken? Where? By whom? Was he alive? (He appears to be dead in one of the photos.)

What other photos are there?

What did Obama and Clinton know about the situation and what were their directions, if any?

Did Stevens actually die at the hospital, if he was there?

Whose body is in the photo, hanging from his heels? Did the hospital hang Stevens from his heels after he "died there?"

Why was Stevens still at the consulate at 10 PM? It seems like only he, the security officer and Smith were in a particular building when an attack began ON THAT BUILDING. Did the terrorists know Stevens precise location within the compound? How did they know?

There are reasons, besides lack of backbone, that people might not opt to defend a nation. If you lived under an oppressive regime, for example, you might not care if your government is toppled; you might even welcome it.

Draftees are slaves. Drafts are supported solely by people too cowardly to fight and too greedy to pay a fair wage to those who do.

I'd love to see what would happen to YOU in the military, basic training.

That would be a really impressive rejoinder if I was the one in favor of forcible conscription. :)

You're some piece of work, I tell you. The young should be forced to fight for you, the rich should be forced to pay for your benefits, the healthy should be forced to subsidize your health care. Apparently your sole purpose in society is to sit there with your hand out.

Also upthread I stated several times that I believe women should not be exempt from a draft, should it be reinstated.

Well then, like I said. We seem to have very different ideas about the relationship of individual citizens to (big) government.

Like I said, there's something of a paradox (or irony) here. Conservatives favor a society that would instill "traditional" values, e.g. ideas about what "America" stands for, feelings of patriotism, ideals of honor, courage, etc.-- things that would inspire young people to voluntarily risk their lives for their country. (I'm a small-l-libertarian more than a conservative, but I do see value in this.)

Democrats scoff at those things (or worse, see it as brain-washing propaganda); and have systematically purged it from the American educational system. Yet many of them would force young people, who've grown up in a society that scoffs at patriotism, to risk their lives involuntarily, because government orders them to.

Topsy-turvy (yet it does make sense, if you see that it serves the purpose of making every war like Vietnam).

Not saying those are Allie's reasons; they don't appear to be. But whatever her reasons are, I find them alien to me.

"The problem with modern warfare is that if we ever are attacked "in a big way," the war will be over before we could train any new recruits of any kind."

And this.

I think I had the shortest training possible to humankind (and that was 20 years ago). Total of three months because all actual technical training was on-the-job. Air Traffic Controller takes nearly a year. Pilot? And I have no idea how long Army training takes, even for mess cook. Infantry?

I'm pretty sure it's something more than, "Look here son... repeat after me, this is my weapon this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for fun. Left face, right face, I DID explain that only Brits salute like that boy! Give me twenty gazillion. Forward leaning rest at FIVE is not acceptable. Now go kill me some Japs."

WTF do we need a draft for? We bought and paid for all of those cruise missiles for a goddamn reason. Let's light them up. I'm sick of our men being shot in the backs by a bunch of cowards who are supposed to be allies.

Yashu, I raised four children with traditional family values, instilled a sense of respect for country, I believe. I came to this country as a three year old refugee from a war ravaged Europe, on a troop carrier no less. My parents became citizens as soon as they were allowed, which was 6 years after we came. They loved this country and taught their children to love this country.

I'm not sure what Freeman was alluding to, but this country is not an oppressive regime, it's still worth defending.

Of course it is -- which is why we have no trouble fielding a volunteer military to defend it.

But a country that cannot find sufficient people willing to voluntarily defend it can't be worth defending. You don't need to hold a gun to someone's head to make them do what THEY think is the right thing to do.

I agree, of course. But largely because of that (it's a country that still inspires its citizens, brave and honorable citizens like your daughter, to defend her), there's no need for a draft-- which would be oppressive-- to do so.